No. 13695
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
CHRIS W. RAMSEY I
Claimant and Respondent,
-vs-
WILLARD DUNCAN and RONALD G. BAIER,
Employer and
ARGONAUT NORTHWEST INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court
Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
Hoven and Brault, Missoula, Montana
Vernon Hoven argued, llissoula, Montana
Submitted: September 23, 1977
~ecided:NOV 10 1 9 ~
Filed: o"Jo\I'i Q -.. .
:"-
Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Appellant, a Plan I1 insurer under the Montana Workers'
Compensation Act, appeals from an award of indemnity benefits
to respondent by the Workers' Compensation Court. The Workers'
Compensation Court awarded respondent indemnity benefits in the
amount of $60 a week for 180 weeks for a 90 percent permanent
partial disability of his right hand. Following denial of its
application for rehearing, the Plan I1 insurer appeals to this
Court.
On June 9, 1975, respondent sustained an injury to his
right hand while employed by Trapper Manufacturing Company of
Kalispell as a "finish man" in the construction of pickup campers.
Respondent's right thumb, index finger and second finger were
severed by a table saw while he was apparently trying to free some
material that had become jammed in the saw.
The injury was promptly reported, a claim was timely
filed, appellant as Trapper's insurer accepted liability, and
temporary total benefits were commenced.
Respondent was initially treated by Dr. G. W. Ingham in
Kalispell who referred him to Dr. Gerald Olmsted of Spokane. Dr.
Olmsted managed to reimplant respondent's thumb after shortening
it approximately 1/2 inch. Attempts to save the other two severed
fingers failed. Respondent was treated by Drs. Ingham and Olmsted
throughout his healing period.
On January 5, 1976, the healing period had ended. By
a report dated January 26, 1976, Dr. Olmsted rated respondent's
disability as 55 percent as compared to the loss of his entire
right hand.
Based on Dr. Olmsted's report, appellant made an offer
of $6,600 as a lump sum settlement of respondent's claim. This
offer was rejected by respondent.
Respondent later was evaluated by Dr. Ingham at appel-
lant's request. Dr. Ingham rated respondent's disability at
66 percent as compared to the loss of the entire right hand.
Based on Dr. Ingham's report, appellant increased its offer of
settlement to $7,920. This offer was also rejected by respon-
dent who demanded payment for total loss of the hand.
The medical ratings of Dr. Olmsted and Dr. Ingham are
the only ratings contained in the record. At the close of the
hearing before the Workers' Compensation Court both parties
stipulated to the medical reports contained in the file and that
both parties would rely on them.
In the meantime respondent returned to work on July 21,
1976. He did not attempt to return to Trapper Manufacturing
because of what he termed "unsafe working conditions". Respon-
dent's first job upon returning to work was as an unskilled
laborer. At the date of the Workers' Compensation Court hearing,
respondent was working as an unskilled laborer for a plywood man-
ufacturing firm. His hourly wage was $1.07 higher per hour than
his wage at Trapper Manufacturing Company at the time of the
accident.
Respondent testified that as a result of the accident
he has experienced a loss of sensitivity in the reimplanted
thumb, and a loss of grip in the entire right hand along with a
general loss of manual dexterity. The effect of the accident
has been to greatly reduce the number of activities which re-
spondent can perform with his right hand and to reduce the speed
at which he can perform other activities. In this regard, he
testified that he was still able to use some of the hand tools
he used in his job at Trapper Manufacturing Company, but that
such use would be at such a slow pace as to be unacceptable to
a manufacturing concern.
The sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Court award of
180 weeks of compensation for a 90 percent permanent partial
disability to respondent's right hand.
The appropriate test to be applied in reviewing Workers'
Compensation Court decisions was recently discussed in Skrukrud
v. Gallatin Laundry Co., Inc., Mont. , 557 P.2d 278, 280,
33 St. Rep. 1191, 1194 (1976), where we stated: " * * * workers'
court decisions will not be overturned if there is substantial
evidence to support its findings and conclusions."
Appellant urges that error was committed in awarding a
90 percent disability where the only medical impairment ratings
were 55 and 66 percent disability. We disagree
Many factors in addition to medical impairment ratings
may be properly considered by the court in determining a claim-
ant's disability. For this reason, impairment ratings do not
conclusively establish limits on compensation awards in all cases;
rather, such medical impairment ratings by physicians are simply
expert opinion evidence constituting but one item of evidence to
be considered along with other evidence presented. Brurud v. Judge
Moving & Storage Co., Inc., Mont. , 563 P.2d 558, 34 St.
Rep. 260 (1977).
In this case we hold that the Workers' Compensation Court
had sufficient evidence to justify an award of 90 percent perma-
nent partial disability on respondent's right hand. Where, as
here, an indemnity award is made under section 92-709, R.C.M. 1947
(the specific injury statute) such award is to compensate for
possible loss of earning capacity in the future without regard
to present earnings. McAlear v. Arthur G. McKee & Co., Mont .
, 558 P.2d 1134, 33 St.Rep. 1337 (1976); Jones v. Glacier
General Assurance Co., 145 Mont. 326, 400 P.2d 888. In addition
to the medical impairment ratings by the doctors, the Workers'
Compensation Court had before it: (1) respondent's testimony
as to his loss of grip and sensation in his right hand; ( 2 )
respondent's work history as a skilled carpenter prior to the
accident and the fact that he is now relegated to unskilled
labor; and (3) the doctors' reports concerning respondent's
specific medical problems including the damage to his hand and
the loss of range of motion of his fingers.
The judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court is
affirmed.
Justice
Chief Justice
Y
Justices